At 01:27 AM 2/20/98 -0500, Joe Neal wrote:>"I get suspicious when I see someone trying to make a radical reinterpretation of>something in science in such a way that it would apparently support their religious>beliefs">>Why? Most of "science" is interpreted through an anti-God predisposition in the first>place. You call that objective?

I think your claim is flat-out wrong and shows a lack of familiarity with people
who do science. I've known a lot of people who do scientific research in geology
and not one of them were actively approaching their work from an "anti-God" perspective
(i.e. intentionally setting out to disprove some particular interpretation of Scripture).

I've said this over and over again for people on these lists but many of you want
to believe what you want to believe. Here it is again -- THERE ARE MAINSTREAM
SCIENTISTS WHO ARE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS!!! Or should I assume you believe that all
Christians who disagree with your exegesis of Genesis 1-2 are not "real" Christians?

I have, however, seen the opposite of your claim -- people who approach science with
their main objective being to prove their interpretation of the Bible as true. The ICR
admits this in their statement of faith. The science of geology has no such statement
of faith that adherents must sign and believe. Geologists just have to present credible
physical evidence to support their claims.